In an impressive show of judiciary fortitude, a judge determined on Friday that President-elect Donald Trump’s on-going legal proceedings, connected to allegations of confidential payment issues, will conclude on January 10th. This is just a short time prior to his eagerly anticipated return to the White House. Nevertheless, the judge made it clear that, despite the concluding trial, Trump will not be subject to any imprisonment, affirming his unwavering belief in Trump’s character. Significantly, this confirms Trump’s unique status: he will embark on his presidential term while being the first president with a resolved felony case to his name.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan, the overseer of the proceedings, conveyed in his written verdict that he will grant Trump, our next president, an unconditional discharge. This kind of discharge means the conviction remains, yet concludes the case without penalties, jail time, or probation. In a show of respect for his stature, Trump is permitted to attend the sentencing virtually, if he so desires.
Merchan declined Trump’s appeal for a case dismissal on the grounds of presidential immunity and due to his upcoming second term. The judge’s decision, he articulated, was to achieve finality and thereby served the interests of justice. He found himself striving to strike the perfect equilibrium: Trump’s unimpeded governance on the one side, and respect for the jury verdict and Supreme Court’s stance on presidential immunity on the other.
Regarding this verdict, Trump expressed his dissatisfaction on his Truth Social platform. He insinuated that a ruling of this nature could forever change the role of the Presidency. Furthermore, he reiterated his stance that the case originated from an illegitimate political attack – a ‘Rigged Charade’, as he called it, orchestrated by Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
In addition to this, the President-elect did not delve into prospective legal progressions. Alvin Bragg’s office tactfully refrained from providing any commentary on Merchan’s decision. However, despite the fact that former Manhattan Judge Diane Kiesel indicates that the ruling is not appealable under New York law, there remains speculation around Trump’s potential attempt to contest this.
Trump, regardless of the current circumstances, retains the ability to appeal his conviction. However, this step cannot be initiated until he is officially sentenced, and it should be noted that self-pardon is not within his powers. Although Trump’s trial was held in a state court, presidential pardons are applicable only for federal crimes.
Despite these ongoing legal predicaments, Trump triumphs yet again, preparing to take office on January 20th. He does so as the first President in history to have been elected post-conviction. The conviction in question, delivered in May, contains 34 counts of falsifying business records.
The statement of allegations suggests that these charges were largely connected to strategies thought to have concealed a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the final stages of his initial 2016 campaign. The payment was allegedly made to avert her from going public with her claims of an affair with Trump before his tenure. However, Trump staunchly denies the claims, asserting that he maintained an immaculate conduct.
The focus of the case shifts to scrutinizing how Trump organized the reimbursement to his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, for the alleged payment to Daniels. With the conviction on record, Trump, now 78 years of age, could have faced a range of repercussions, from a mere fine or probation to a maximum four-year imprisonment term.
His sentencing was initially planned in July, but was later rescheduled twice at the behest of his defense team. In light of Trump’s election victory on November 5th, Merchan postponed the sentencing once more, providing the defense and prosecution the opportunity to present their final arguments regarding the direction of the case.
Trump’s legal team petitioned Merchan to discard the case altogether, warning of its potential unconstitutional interruptions to the President-elect’s order of business. The prosecution, although conceding that his new role should be taken into consideration, firmly held that the conviction should not be overturned.
They proposed various alternatives, including postponing the case during his term or assuring him of no jail time, and even suggested the unusual option of concluding the case with a formal acknowledgment of both his conviction and his undecided appeal.
Merchan eventually determined that the President-elect’s present status does not extend the customary immunity reserved for a currently serving President. Overruling the case, as per the Judge, both disregarded the principle of Rule of Law and undermined it in numerous ways. Emphasizing the difference in Trump’s circumstances compared to a routine case, Merchan noted the absence of alignment with the immunity decree of the Supreme Court, which largely protects presidents against criminal prosecution when in office.